There's a pretty sizeable gap where people who are too sick to seek help but aren't violent fall.

I have no idea what you're trying to say (in bold), but I do suspect you are blaming the people with the least power. You are apparently calling people who are oppressed & exploited mentally "sick", instead of the people doing the oppressing and exploitation.

When there are more people than jobs, and the land is violently limited to being owned almost entirely by the wealthy, then that system guarantees "homelessness" (landlessness.)

Even if everyone was albert einstein, if there's more people than jobs, there's going to be a lot of jobless people.

If you do not allow those people to claim land, & to thus be able to work hard building a home etc, they're almost waiting around for older people to die so they can have a chance at a job.

Instead, if we had a world like I described, (with an egalitarian distribution of land, and legal building) then if someone was wondering around "homeless" that would be a sign they might have brain damage.

But to pretend the people who can't find the non-existent jobs (again there's more people than jobs) are "brain damaged" / "mentally ill" is incredibly cruel & not accurate.

And to offer to "help house them" (ie the female homeless with kids, generally) in shitty high crime areas is not the same. It's like telling someone to sit there on the government welfare when they may want to work all day building a home, a workshop, a store, a business.

The whole economy is controlled/rigged by the most powerful people who control the state. If you're going to blame someone, blame them. Please do not blame the powerless.

Societies have changed countless times over thousands of years, proving "human nature" isn't a static, unchanging thing. (There isn't one universal human nature that exists for all people in all places at all times under all conditions.)

"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."

-- Andrew Collier

Q. What is capitalism?

The capitalist mode of production is where capital ownership is used by non-workers to accumulate more capital for themselves.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: As of June 6, 2017 at 1:00AM EDT, anything regarding: monarchy, feudalism, libertarianism, royalism, authoritarianism, identification of the Chesnekov cause, the use of “Chesnekovism”, nobility, or anything else not found on our website (ufkchesnekovia.simdif.com) is hereby officially made outdated by Henryk Kaltyumejval and Fredirik Yeryomin, with assistance from the Stuurehnkomrads Alekzaander Kuznetsav and Hristomir Hohenzolern of the UFKC. Please do not quote or use as reference any information or wording in this post/comment. We are electing not to remove any of our posts or comments on account of keeping ourselves honest and open to users on Reddit to see what our cause was before our large change. Please visit: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftCentral/comments/6fjtuo/update_to_ufkc_please_read/ or go to u/ufkc_henryk to see our update post posted to r/leftcentral.

Hello fellow Anti-Capitalists. My name is Henryk K and I lead an organization that seeks to remove capitalism from governments in an efficient and successful manner. We rely heavily on unity of our population and strong community workmanship. We seek to change history by creating a government that flourishes on its sense of community and equality, rather than a capitalistic government that flourishes on its greed and corruption. Please visit our website and give our cause a chance. It's ufkchesnekovia.simdif.com. We are open to all critique or praise you may have, that is how we make our cause better.

"the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquity, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe.”

Imagine everyone in "Blue Valley" has 1/4th acre of land. Some neighbors work together & make a shared co-op, so four of them have a 1 acre co-op.

Then they decide "Joe is a jerk" & tell him to take his products of work & leave and work by himself. Since this is non-hierarchical personal property (eg everyone has the same land) they are not his rulers, but equals, it's consistent with anarchism.

Q. What do anarchists mean by "no rules/rulers?

A.

It's statism when someone who does not personally use a property & violently controls/governs the people on that land.

eg if you are sitting in your home & must follow the "rules"/laws of some far away attacker, you are living in a state.

What's not a state is when everyone only enforces their own egalitarian (non-hierarchical) personally used property.

How do you know the capitalist's profits come from the worker's need for the land/resources? (And not the business?)

Similarly, consider rental homes. Currently, if an absentee owner builds a rental home in the middle of town they can usually rent it for massive profits.

But instead if these homes were moved to unwanted land (eg a few miles from town) city people would soon claim all that land & build their own homes. (The landlord would run out of victims/"customers.")

ie, the landlord would discover the real income source wasn't the home- workers can build their own homes. The real source of income was depriving workers of the land they needed to build their own homes. (Unless they submitted to exploitation.)

The same is true for businesses.

(ie, the capitalist's "business" or "rental property" is a distraction from their violent parasitic profits from owning the land.)

Capitalists come up with many excuses for their violence, profits, etc. eg, they pretend they "provide management" (which isn't lacking- workers would manage themselves if allowed to.) They "provide capital" which is value violently stolen from workers, & so on.

But I digress.

Whatever the excuse is, this is the debunk:

"If that was the true source of capitalist's profits they wouldn't need to enforce their ownership of practically all land & resources.

ie, if capitalism really wasn't about violent exploitation then they could allow workers could own the land (and thus the means of production) & still make their massive profits."

Basically, capitalists will come up with endless excuses to why their ownership/violence over their land is legitimate. But the truth is to a non-worker-capitalist, they're violently depriving workers of land of value to workers unless they submit to exploitation.

"What the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others.

All we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it. "

"What the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others.

All we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it. "